"Those who know God have experienced the fact of his presence; such God-knowing mortals hold in their personal experience the only positive proof of the existence of the living God which one human being can offer to another."

The Urantia Book, (1:2.

So this poped up on my facebook and would like to talk about it.

If only God knowing mortals can have proof of God, why are there non god knowing mortals?

How does one go from being non god knowing to god knowing without blindly choosing a text and choosing to blindly believe in it?

How does a god knowing mortal know that he isnt deluded, insane or simply just wishfuly thinking?

The one unqualified gift God gave us is free will. Everything else given to us is subject to certain qualifications, limitations, and conditions. But our free will is ours and is absolutely ours.

Since God is the source of pretty much everything else in our total experience, the only real gift we can give God is our free will desire to love and be with Him in all that we do. To share our inner life with Him.

In order to do that, then we must have the potential to not desire to love and know Him. To be able to choose God's will implies that we also have the ability to not choose the divine will and thus the ability to not know God.

That is why there are God-knowing mortals and non-God-knowing mortals.

You can only be God-knowing by cultivating a personal relationship with our Father. It does not matter what name you call Him or what gender you assign. All that matters is that you tune into the First Source of Universe, the First Cause, the Great Spirit, whatever your conception of the personality of total reality is.

It must be genuine and is definitely unique to the individual. My relationship with God is and will be completely different than yours. The only proof you and I would have is that we both know that we know God.

Maybe an analogy. I know the sky is (often) blue by my experience of seeing the sky. I presume you know the sky is blue through your experience of seeing it as well (assuming you can see and are not colorblind). Together, we can both relate that it is blue, and we know so because each of us has had the same experience of knowing the sky and of its blueness.

Yet, I cannot know that your blue is my blue. I do not know what you really SEE, but I know that you have seen it.

Neither could a hypothetical underground cave dweller who has never seen the sky ever hope to conceive of a blue sky even if you and I both attest to its existence through our own personal experiences. But despite what the cave dweller thinks, we would both know the truth that there is a sky and it is blue.

That there are so many of us who share this personal religious experience, that we know in the depths of our bones there is something not totally coincidental going on, not random, that some presence pervades certain experiences, though we may not understand it, we know these experiences are real because we are not alone in experiencing them.

Like many other humans, I have had experiences where I deluded myself. There are likely moments in my life where I could have been considered temporarily insane. And I definitely have had many bouts of wishful thinking. Knowing all those experiences actually just validates the reality of God in my life even more, because when you walk with Him, it is simply unlike any other experience you have ever had.

It all boils down to a choice! Every single person on this planet can open up the door and share their hearts with God. It may sound crazy, but the truth is even crazier-- He will answer. And then you will have your proof.

What a great bunch of questions !I don’t think anyone really knows the answer, really, but I bet a lot of us will have insightful responses:

Here is mine:We all live in our own subjective worlds. Each and every one of us. Everything we see, everything we touch, hear and think about is taking place inside a very private place… inside our minds.Really, how can one person know what another is thinking? I mean REALLY know. Every experience we have is viewed and filtered thru our personal lens. And the lens are viewing thru is the sum total of our individual experience. It’s both a Catch 22 and a ticket to Eternity.So, understanding this, it can be seen that once and a the same time, any concept we entertain can be either a flight of fancy, a keen understanding of the universe, or an outright lie. I feel that most of my thoughts are more of an undecipherable mixture of all three of the above.As we grow, we begin to understand that Truth is relative. All of our concepts of what the universe is, what God is, what things are and how it all fits together are relative to the level of our understanding of Truth. Think of it this way:If all the Truth in the universe were an ocean, and all we could accumulate in this short life if the flesh was a cup, then, in the big picture, no one would really have much truth at all. But taken at our level, some are holding cups which hold a whole lot more than others, so in the here and now, it appears that some are really far ahead in the Truth game.So back to your question: are we onto something or all insane? I don’t really know, I don’t think any of us do, at least at some final and ultimate level. You just gotta go on what you know, on who you are, where you have been and were you think you are going. Its called faith, its called life.Its your rollercoaster ride, make it how you want it.

Greetings Edril....and well said quil!! It is appropriate to ask "does God exist" prior to the presumptive questions of "where do we come from", "what are we here for", "and where do we go from here" - all of which assume a creator. Please note that the quote posted does NOT say there is no evidence of God but only that there is no proof of God that can be adequately transferred from any mind to another. The proof of God lies within the personal response to God within, the realization of the presence and person found, the experience of relationship, and the fruits of that relationship.

It should be noted that religion divorced science long before science returned the favor. Both religion and science pursue the same reality - creation and its creator. Modern, and godless, science can also not prove there is no God just as religion (as institution that is) cannot prove there is. But there is far more evidence that there is a creator and manager of an orderly universe than there is evidence of mechanistic and accidental forces finding or becoming order. Physics and the laws of natural order and evolution are all evidence of God - an orderly and managed universe created by a First Source and Center.

God gives free will (as noted) and mind and personality only to mortals/humans. We are quite distinguishable from the rest of the animal kingdom in these ways. But I find the key to a personalized creator to be....love. From whence does it come? For what? Let science explain love and altruism and duty and loyalty and self sacrifice as the accidental result of an evolutionary process rather than an endowment by God. Let science create life....any form of life from no life.

A most excellent topic for our consideration and shared conversation. I apologize to all for the lengthy text quote to come but I do not know if Edril is a reader and has access to the UB so I thought this appropriate to the query:

7. The Vulnerability of Materialism

195:7.1 (2078.4) How foolish it is for material-minded man to allow such vulnerable theories as those of a mechanistic universe to deprive him of the vast spiritual resources of the personal experience of true religion. Facts never quarrel with real spiritual faith; theories may. Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith — human belief in spiritual realities and divine values.

195:7.2 (2078.5) Science should do for man materially what religion does for him spiritually: extend the horizon of life and enlarge his personality. True science can have no lasting quarrel with true religion. The “scientific method” is merely an intellectual yardstick wherewith to measure material adventures and physical achievements. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences.

195:7.3 (2078.6) The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe.

195:7.4 (2078.7) Paradise values of eternity and infinity, of truth, beauty, and goodness, are concealed within the facts of the phenomena of the universes of time and space. But it requires the eye of faith in a spirit-born mortal to detect and discern these spiritual values.

195:7.5 (2078. The realities and values of spiritual progress are not a “psychologic projection” — a mere glorified daydream of the material mind. Such things are the spiritual forecasts of the indwelling Adjuster, the spirit of God living in the mind of man. And let not your dabblings with the faintly glimpsed findings of “relativity” disturb your concepts of the eternity and infinity of God. And in all your solicitation concerning the necessity for self-expression do not make the mistake of failing to provide for Adjuster-expression, the manifestation of your real and better self.

195:7.6 (2079.1) If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.

195:7.7 (2079.2) The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man’s conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic.

195:7.8 (2079.3) The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

195:7.9 (2079.4) A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit.

195:7.10 (2079.5) The sincere effort of man to become a mechanist represents the tragic phenomenon of that man’s futile effort to commit intellectual and moral suicide. But he cannot do it.

195:7.11 (2079.6) If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.

195:7.12 (2079.7) If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.

195:7.13 (2079. If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.

195:7.14 (2079.9) The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual.

195:7.15 (2079.10) Art proves that man is not mechanistic, but it does not prove that he is spiritually immortal. Art is mortal morontia, the intervening field between man, the material, and man, the spiritual. Poetry is an effort to escape from material realities to spiritual values.

195:7.16 (2080.1) In a high civilization, art humanizes science, while in turn it is spiritualized by true religion — insight into spiritual and eternal values. Art represents the human and time-space evaluation of reality. Religion is the divine embrace of cosmic values and connotes eternal progression in spiritual ascension and expansion. The art of time is dangerous only when it becomes blind to the spirit standards of the divine patterns which eternity reflects as the reality shadows of time. True art is the effective manipulation of the material things of life; religion is the ennobling transformation of the material facts of life, and it never ceases in its spiritual evaluation of art.

195:7.17 (2080.2) How foolish to presume that an automaton could conceive a philosophy of automatism, and how ridiculous that it should presume to form such a concept of other and fellow automatons!

195:7.18 (2080.3) Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it.

195:7.19 (2080.4) Mechanists — humanists — tend to drift with the material currents. Idealists and spiritists dare to use their oars with intelligence and vigor in order to modify the apparently purely material course of the energy streams.

195:7.20 (2080.5) Science lives by the mathematics of the mind; music expresses the tempo of the emotions. Religion is the spiritual rhythm of the soul in time-space harmony with the higher and eternal melody measurements of Infinity. Religious experience is something in human life which is truly supermathematical.

195:7.21 (2080.6) In language, an alphabet represents the mechanism of materialism, while the words expressive of the meaning of a thousand thoughts, grand ideas, and noble ideals — of love and hate, of cowardice and courage — represent the performances of mind within the scope defined by both material and spiritual law, directed by the assertion of the will of personality, and limited by the inherent situational endowment.

195:7.22 (2080.7) The universe is not like the laws, mechanisms, and the uniformities which the scientist discovers, and which he comes to regard as science, but rather like the curious, thinking, choosing, creative, combining, and discriminating scientist who thus observes universe phenomena and classifies the mathematical facts inherent in the mechanistic phases of the material side of creation. Neither is the universe like the art of the artist, but rather like the striving, dreaming, aspiring, and advancing artist who seeks to transcend the world of material things in an effort to achieve a spiritual goal.

195:7.23 (2080. The scientist, not science, perceives the reality of an evolving and advancing universe of energy and matter. The artist, not art, demonstrates the existence of the transient morontia world intervening between material existence and spiritual liberty. The religionist, not religion, proves the existence of the spirit realities and divine values which are to be encountered in the progress of eternity.

(148:6.10) ...the Father...speaks within the human heart as a still, small voice, saying, `This is the way; walk therein.' Do you not comprehend that God dwells within you, that he has become what you are that he may make you what he is!"

Aloha... Long time now see Just got a new laptop ... so... when I saw this Coop I thought of one of my favs...

34:7.8 ...Having started out on the way of life everlasting, having accepted the assignment and received your orders to advance, do not fear the dangers of human forgetfulness and mortal inconstancy, do not be troubled with doubts of failure or by perplexing... confusion, do not falter and question your status and standing, for in every dark hour, at every crossroad in the forward struggle, the Spirit of Truth will always speak, saying, "This is the way."...

For me to respond to this thread... good one too. I do question at times if what I am doing is God's will... and know that I make mistakes but as taught... it is my will that thy will be done. I start my day with this prayer and go about doing my best and honest way. As we say in Hawaii... To live Pono AND this is where faith comes in... AND the more one does it the more reassured one becomes.

Let me introduce you to the Hawaiian word, kina'ole. Kina'ole means “doing the right thing, in the right way, at the right time, in the right place, to the right person, for the right reason, with the right feeling…the first time.Aloha...

Thanks for the replies everyone. This is very interesting. Before I continue, let me stress that any doubts or refutations I make are not intended to offend and absolutely no disrespect is intended. Unfortunately, I will be playing devil's advocate because I believe I absolutely must question everything no matter how much I want to believe something. Wishing something were true does not make it true.

To clarify to Fanofvan and anyone else who might be interested, I am a reader of TUB. I keep a copy on my book shelves next other theological books. Theology is one of my favorite subjects.

I would like to respond to a couple of points made by quil, and if these topics don't take off maybe we could touch on the philosophy referenced to by Fanofvan, which is also very interesting to me.

Quil, et al:

Free will-I personally can't subscribe to the concept of free will. The ability to actually author our own thoughts, when you really think about it, would require some kind of magical power rivaling that which is generally attributed to god; omniscience. I don't decide what thoughts pop into my head, they just pop in there. ( Ghostbusters reference!) Say I ask you to think of a city. Any city. First of all, you are limited to the names of cities that you know of. That list is then limited to the names of cities that you can remember. Then here's where free will really falls apart. When I asked you to think of the name of a city, I bet a list of 2-5 cities simply appeared in your head. Out of all the cities you know and remember, why these 3? When did you decide for them to come to the surface of your consciousness? I think if you take a hard honest look at that process, you'll find that you had no freedom here, they simply arrived within your consciousness. Now you might say, well that's just how our brains work, we are limited to the capacity of our brains and we still had the freedom to choose which of those 3. But then again, did you really? There are a million factors that would cause you to choose one, and if you look at each of those factors, you will see there is as little freedom in each of those factors as there was in choosing the original list of contenders. Another though experiment: Consider your favorite genre of music as well as your least favorite genre of music. For me, my favorite would be swing-jazz, while my least favorite is modern pop country. Do you or I have the freedom to choose to reverse these affinities? I can't choose for country to be my favorite while choosing to hate jazz. This is impossible. I could PRETEND that I dislike jazz. I could stop listening to it, and instead listen to country and claim it is my favorite. But deep down, I really prefer jazz and cannot change this.

Quil, you actually talked about some other reasons I can't believe in free will. The fact that I can't help but to NOT believe in free will, and the fact that you cannot help but to BELIEVE in it shows that there is no free will. Could you choose to not believe in God? Probably not. Maybe changes in their brain or environment or education might cause them to stop believing, but they had no choice in this; it simply stopped resonating with them. One could PRETEND to not believe in God. They could claim an atheistic viewpoint and defend it. They could cease going to church and praying and so forth, but deep down, they would still believe in God. This is why there are believers and non believers. They have no choice. Likewise, a scientifically minded atheist will not believe in God until he is presented with empirical evidence, or at least a valid and sound philosophical argument for his existence. He can't decide to not be scientifically minded, after all, God made him that way. He could pretend to ignore the evidence against certain claims about God, but deep down, he will know they are flawed. He can't help this. He as no choice. His will is not free; it's completely restrained by his brain, his experiences, his genetics, his environment. Which brings me back to my original question. If god is real, why did he make the atheist? You say there has to be non-believers in order for there to be believers. This is simply not true. Every one who has consciousness believes that they are having an experience. There is no differing viewpoint here. There doesn't need to be an objection to this to make it true and an objection won't make it any better to believe.

Analogy about sky-The problem with this analogy is that, concerning God, we are all the underground cave dweller. No one has seen the metaphorical sky. You should see why this presents a problem. Even though in reality we know the sky exists, underground cave dwellers have no good reason to believe in it.

Consensus doesn't equal truth-"That there are so many of us who share this personal religious experience, that we know in the depths of our bones there is something not totally coincidental going on, not random, that some presence pervades certain experiences, though we may not understand it, we know these experiences are real because we are not alone in experiencing them."

Everyone used to think that the earth was flat, and that the stars circled this flat stationary earth. That didn't make it true.

The thing is, we all have the same type of brains. We all have unanswered questions. And all of our brains are wired to come up with a proposed answer. This is common because our genetics that built our brains is common. For all the little things, we can actually test those made up answers. This is called a hypothesis in science. The thing about gods, demons, angels, afterlives, etc. is they cannot be tested, but they feel like such a good answer because it makes us feel good, and would answer SO many questions. All the BIG questions that bother us deeply are answered by this. This satisfies us in the absence of evidence, and so we call the experience itself to be evidence. If someone is truly honest with themselves, they should be able to see that answers that were just made up in your head cannot reliably represent actual truth, even if others happened to come up with them. Let me ask you this, If you never were taught about the concept of God, jesus, the afterlife, etc. would you have intuited this? Would you have accurately come to these conclusions without the pre-written text or indoctrination by society? I haven't the free will to avoid doubting this.

One thing's for sure, I for one don't look forward to having a "fun discussion" (as you mockingly put it) with another fanciful, insincere and self diluted atheist. Certainly not on Sunday. There is nothing fun about it. Like I've heard it said many times, debating an atheist is like debating a fish about water. The one that always gets me is the proverbial "there's no such thing as free will" bit. Brother please! The thing that stands out with this type of atheist is determination. Like the free will choice to be determined itself (about atheism) and then make another free will choice to come onto this forum, and make a useless, pointless and insulting attempt to insinuate that those of us in the world who have faith in God are credulous, gullible and naive, and sugar coat it with so much "make nice". I won't waist my time with you and please go to your beloved atheist forum where you can revel and worship yourself in your chosen unbelief.

And I pray the peace beyond a thousand words descends on you and helps you to decide to reconsider the nonsense of atheism. At least, don't waist anymore time coming here to try to convert us, pontificating as the devil's advocate.

NodAmanaV, That was incredibly rude, and simply not true. First of all, I'm not an atheist. I never said I was an atheist. Second, I made it clear that I don't intend on offending anyone or belittling their beliefs. If you're offended by me having philosophical/theological questions, that's on you. I frankly cannot be held responsible for it. You didn't need to read this nor did you need to "waste" your time replying to it with blatant insults.

The only point you attempted to make to help educate me was about free will. Basically saying I chose to come here, therefore I have free will. Let me make it clear. When I say I don't believe in free will, I didn't say people don't actively make decisions. I simply mean the part of our consciousness which we call "I", is not the author of our thoughts and convictions.

I hope your attitude is not representative of this forum as a whole, or else it seems I came to the wrong place.

I think what nodAmanaV is trying to get at is that you've apparently already made up your mind, and there is little sense in spending much time arguing about these things because all we will see are continued refutations of basic assumptions. The conversation won't get anywhere.

It sounds like your issues are philosophical. You reject the notion of freewill. This makes sense if you hold a mechanistic viewpoint of the universe, where mind is manifest merely as an emergent phenomenon from the right assembly of matter and energy systems. It seems you hold that we are basically machines with preprogrammed thought patterns inherited by evolution and freewill is an illusion. Really what we are seeing is basic decision making but no actual manifestation of will.

FWIW It's an interesting thought-experiment, and one of the big questions in the philosophy of so-called "artificial intelligence." Can machines have consciousness? What is intelligence? etc.

In TUB we are instructed that mind is a ministered phenomenon. It is bestowed upon physical (and other) systems. That a living brain exists does not automatically mean it will have mind a priori. Instead the living system must be encircuited in the various mind ministries available in the universe. Further, we are also told of the phenomenon of personality, which transcends even the physical and morontial systems and their union with God-fragments. Personality is the real source of freewill, and it is bestowed by the Father or by the Spirit in the name of the Father.

I chose to walk in faith with that worldview. If you'd like to discuss it and the nuances within it, I'm game. But I can't really get anywhere in any direction you'd like if you're rejecting fundamental notions underpinning much human theological thought and, of course, the entire TUB.

I don't reject anything that i'm not certain of. Although, I will try to refute everything until I become certain.

I guess, then, that free will seems to be the thing preventing this conversation from going further.

As I stated, I'm not an atheist. I have no choice in this matter. Despite the fact that I require evidence to believe almost anything, I still cannot choose to not believe in God event though almost all god claims are easily refuted, obviously false, or merely lacking the ability to meet the burden of proof. Not only that, but I actually don't approve, from a moral standpoint, any descriptions of God that I've heard. (see problem of evil)So I can say with certainty that my will is not "free enough" concerning (at least) my belief in God. Someone who was truly a materialists/determinist would say this is because I was indoctrinated as a child. If instead of indoctrination its because of an indwelling spirit of God, why has he forsaken almost all of humanity in this respect? Why are atheists lacking this personal revelation?And I'll ask again, do you have the freedom of will to decide to not believe in God? Is this even an option for you? I'd wager not.

Free will doesn't mean that we have the ability to make any possible choice (the ability to name any city on earth in your proposal). Obviously, we can't choose something that isn't choosable. It only means that we exercise freedom when we make the choice that we make within the range of possible choices...that the choice wasn't predetermined for us or that we were somehow fated to make the one choice that we made.

The concept of free will really has nothing to say about your inability to choose to like pop-country music...it only says that your choice to prefer swing-jazz was freely made without coercion.

regarding proof of God...the only experience that validates the Fatherhood of God is the experience of being a child of God. To someone who has experienced this no proof is necessary and to someone who has not experienced it no proof is possible. If it wasn't so then there would be no use for faith in Gods plan for life on earth.

consider that even the observational facts of science are experienced and filtered thru the mind before they are made real to another mind.

If you could abolish all talk and knowledge of God and divinity from the earth the concept would soon reappear due to the actions of the indwelling spirit of God within us all. Like water, the spirit is constantly seeking it's own level...seeking to return from whence it came.

Proof of God? The real question is what are you proving to be? Are you proving to have an unswerving desire to find God and become like him? That's what needs to be proven, mere belief is not enough. You are living the proof.

"Those who know God have experienced the fact of his presence; such God-knowing mortals hold in their personal experience the only positive proof of the existence of the living God which one human being can offer to another." The Urantia Book, (1:2.8)

Edril -- It would seem that your questions, which address the sentence noted above, as a portion of an entire quote, might be addressed in the remainder of the quote paragraph, which would change some of the possible answers unless the topic title were to be changed to a more personal question from a statement. Therefore if one looks at the entire paragraph presented the usage of "God-knowing" which is presented as a post-product of "God-consciousness" as perceived through "contact" with "God-presence" within oneself, as proof that oneself exists, only from the standpoint of their conscious reality as being, is still not "Proof of God" to any other personality but held only in ones own mind.

Quote:

(24.6) 1:2.8 Those who know God have experienced the fact of his presence; such God-knowing mortals hold in their personal experience the only positive proof of the existence of the living God which one human being can offer to another. The existence of God is utterly beyond all possibility of demonstration except for the contact between the God-consciousness of the human mind and the God-presence of the Thought Adjuster that indwells the mortal intellect and is bestowed upon man as the free gift of the Universal Father.

One would be correct to assume that "the free gift" as a spark of life, considered as consciousness, would not require a "God-presence" as "bestowed" to any individual person, where belief in "God-knowing" cannot exist unless one has "experienced" something which would be considered as unbelievable, possibly based on one ability to comprehend and understand things which are outside of the known scientific realm of existence. Then everyone's experience which might be considered as "Proof of God" is "beyond all possibility of demonstration" or explanation to another because those experiences would depend on the receptivity of others to assimilate with their own experiences, which may not be present or similar.

Edril wrote:

If only God knowing mortals can have proof of God, why are there non god knowing mortals?

It would seem that "non god knowing mortals" may have a different perception of what God is to them, or that they cannot associate with those who consider themselves as "God knowing", therefore those who deem themselves to know God, could not assess that another does not know God based on their interaction. In other words, it is only their opinion, one way or another, and opinions may only be fact to the beholder, based on their experience? So, prove to me or us, that one knows God?

Edril wrote:

How does one go from being non god knowing to god knowing without blindly choosing a text and choosing to blindly believe in it?

The answer would be "experience" but, it would not require "choosing" anything, other than believing in the unbelievable through observation of the actions of others. To "blindly believe" in text, would not be a free-will act of experiencing that which is written unless what is written can be personally experienced.

Edril wrote:

How does a god knowing mortal know that he isnt deluded, insane or simply just wishfuly thinking?

A "god knowing mortal" doesn't know, especially if they attempt to present to others why they think that way, because there is always someone who will have a different opinion, regardless of being able to know someone else's personal experience, or thinking they having experienced the same.That's why it is easier to present arguments which are presented in text as opposed to presenting one's own opinion about text. As they say "opinions are like ass-holes, every bodies got one." The problem lies in the exchange of opinions when one attempts to prove that God does or does not exist, so for some it is easier to just blindly believe, and quote text as gospel, wishing that some day it will become fact.